The repeated delays mean that Congress will head home for two weeks without having passed the bill out of committee, a step that reformers were ardently hopeful would come to pass. It's a potentially alarming delay since there are just 39 days left before the Senate's August break. Congress will return to work in September, but with an election campaign in full swing at that point, it's unlikely that any significant legislation will pass.

However, late yesterday Leahy's office said that a "manager's amendment"—that is, the chairman's preferred draft of the bill—will be circulated to the committee members the day they return from their two-week break. The committee will consider a bill the first week that Senators are back, which is the week of April 28.

"We have made enormous progress, and we now have a broad bipartisan agreement in principle," said Leahy. "This is a complex issue and we need additional time to draft the important provisions that have been the subject of discussion."

Sources lobbying both for and against the bill said that the past two weeks have been largely opaque for negotiations, with Senate staffers keeping the discussions behind closed doors. But yesterday's announcement about the "broad agreement in principle" has given hope to reformers, who got most, but not all, of what they were looking for in a version of the bill that passed the House of Representatives in a 325-91 vote in December.

"It's a little disappointing that there's a delay, but frankly everything we're hearing is good news," said Julie Samuels, who has lobbied in favor of a reform bill in her former capacity as an EFF attorney and now as head of Engine Advocacy, a group representing startups. "The senators are close to a deal, if not at a deal, that would have most of what's in the Innovation Act," the name for the anti-patent-troll bill that passed the House. "We just hope those measures are as strong as they were in the House bill."

Opponents, meanwhile, are scrambling, since they don't know quite what they're arguing against.

"We call on Senate leaders to share the details of the latest potential deal and include the leaders of America’s innovation economy in a collaborative process," read a statement from the Innovation Alliance, a group composed of the chief opponents to the bill.

The Innovation Alliance has been sending letters to Leahy and ranking committee member Sen. Charles Grassley (R-IA), with a growing list of more than 100 companies signed on, indicating that they don't support the bill as currently composed. "This tremendous surge in signees over just a few days really underscores the broad range of companies and organizations that have serious objections to the current direction of the patent proposals being considered," wrote an Innovation Alliance spokesperson in an e-mail yesterday.

Charles Duan, who has written in support of patent reform for the advocacy group Public Knowledge, said that he believes the delay is less about substantive disagreement and more about just hammering out the right language.

"There are also issues involving the discovery, in terms of how much they should legislate versus how much they should leave up to the judicial conference to make rules about these matters," said Duan.

Opponents of the bill include a variety of companies and groups that find themselves more often on the plaintiff side in patent litigation and deal less frequently with trolls. Those include pharmaceutical, biotech, and medical device companies, as well as heavy patent-licensors like Dolby and Qualcomm. University groups have also opposed the current version of the bill, although American Association of Universities VP John Vaughn told Ars that he believes there's room for a compromise version.

"If you work through it methodically enough, you can do a good job of targeting bad behavior and not sweeping in good behavior," said Vaughn. "The proponents have been pressing for very aggressive provisions. When you do that in a broad way, it really compromises the ability of patent holders to legitimately enforce patents."

While I agree that the law shouldn't unfairly target companies that are just trying to defend the patents that they earned through honest research, discovery, and development, I wasn't aware that bill being considered was going to do that. I thought it made people be certain of their claims and not just throwing lawsuits at defendants to make a quick buck. That's one of the biggest problems with patent trolls. Not that they are trying to enforce honest, quality patents but that they are trying to suck money out of businesses via threat of lawsuit.

Ask yourself this: why would any legislative body even hesitate to declare patent/copyright troll companies, who didn't create the IP, just bought it from someone else, producing nothing from it, for the sole purpose of litigation, illegal and anathema. Doesn't make sense unless they are profiting from it also..

I wouldn't say 'forgotten' but... there will be a big delay. The conventional wisdom I hear from People Who Know DC is that nothing else will happen in this Congress after July. Everything will be focused on the election after that. After the election, the Senate doesn't come back until January.

Ask yourself this: why would any legislative body even hesitate to declare patent/copyright troll companies, who didn't create the IP, just bought it from someone else, producing nothing from it, for the sole purpose of litigation, illegal and anathema. Doesn't make sense unless they are profiting from it also..

because a lot of the biggest companies like Cisco, Google, Microsoft and Apple assign a lot of their patents to these entities. and then you have international standards like LTE, JEDEC, and Blu Ray being controlled by what are essentially patent trolls because the patents were assigned to a third party who doesn't produce anything.

"The proponents have been pressing for very aggressive provisions. When you do that in a broad way, it really compromises the ability of patent holders to legitimately enforce patents."

IF it is a software patent, THEN it can not be "legitimately" enforced. I say that as a software patent holder. Software patents shouldn't exist unless the patent office can find someway of not granting obvious patents. They "obviously" will never do that, so that's why we can't have nice things, like software patents.

edit: Better to slow down innovation a bit by not allowing patents on software, than attach a huge ball and chain to the whole industry's leg, which is what is happening now. The net effect would be positive for innovation. Less suing, and more actual product development.

"The proponents have been pressing for very aggressive provisions. When you do that in a broad way, it really compromises the ability of patent holders to legitimately enforce patents."

IF it is a software patent, THEN it can not be "legitimately" enforced. I say that as a software patent holder. Software patents shouldn't exist unless the patent office can find someway of not granting obvious patents. They "obviously" will never do that, so that's why we can't have nice things, like software patents.

edit: Better to slow down innovation a bit by not allowing patents on software, than attach a huge ball and chain to the whole industry's leg, which is what is happening now. The net effect would be positive for innovation. Less suing, and more actual product development.

I would partially agree with you. The single problem with US software patents is that they are classified as Utility Patents by the USPTO but they do not meet the basic standards for being a Utility Patent.

Until software patents are reclassified as either a sub-group of Design Patents or as their own entity entirely I do not see a way that there can be a valid reform movement to the “patent troll” situation.

This is easy to say but the larger problem is that if there were a reclassification of software patents tomorrow it would severely undermine the US economy overnight. If the investment of billions (if not trillions) of dollars in software patents were to be suddenly removed from the most lucrative tech sectors in the economy then the perceived value and stability of the US economy would be shaken.

Unfortunately, at least in my opinion, the longer that software patents remain classified as Utility Patents the more instability will grow into the US economy.

"We call on Senate leaders to share the details of the latest potential deal and include the leaders of America’s innovation economy in a collaborative process," read a statement from the Innovation Alliance, a group composed of the chief opponents to the bill."

Senate leaders: "We would do, but alas only a bunch of second rate Patent trolls have asked for them."

No idea if it is part of reform, but there are few ways to mitigate problem. In EU patent holder must pay each year a few to renew patent and with each year it increases. And of course strict analysis on patent application along side an requirement to contain something novel and innovative.

But then most of disputed patents wouldn't be allowed here in the first place. (IIRC there are some other interesting differences in patent law between USA and EU)

So, using our understanding of how Congress works (using AHCA or net neutrality as a guide), they'll write a law that is meant to curb patent trolls, but what they will end up doing is open up a door for more companies to sue. Not only that, but after the new law takes effect, those companies will then be able to sue absolutely anyone who has ever touched one of the products affected by said patent, since Congress will feel sorry for the patent trolls not being able to make money off of an idea that they never made a product off of.

I guess I'm a bit of a cynic nowadays when it comes to our Congressional "leaders".

"We call on Senate leaders to share the details of the latest potential deal and include the leaders of America’s innovation economy in a collaborative process," read a statement from the Innovation Alliance, a group composed of the chief opponents to the bill."

Senate leaders: "We would do, but alas only a bunch of second rate Patent trolls have asked for them."

Question for this poster. The Innovation Alliance counts among its members, Dolby and Qualcomm. Are these companies "second rate Patent trolls"?

"The proponents have been pressing for very aggressive provisions. When you do that in a broad way, it really compromises the ability of patent holders to legitimately enforce patents."

IF it is a software patent, THEN it can not be "legitimately" enforced. I say that as a software patent holder. Software patents shouldn't exist unless the patent office can find someway of not granting obvious patents. They "obviously" will never do that, so that's why we can't have nice things, like software patents.

edit: Better to slow down innovation a bit by not allowing patents on software, than attach a huge ball and chain to the whole industry's leg, which is what is happening now. The net effect would be positive for innovation. Less suing, and more actual product development.

I've got to take issue with the "huge ball and chain" comment. The US has been more permissive than the EU in granting software patents. Which region has the better software based economy? I can't say that software patents help, but they certainly aren't a "huge ball and chain."

And, please, anyone attempting to rebut this, cite some data. Don't come at me with this "patent system is broken" stuff citing anecdotal evidence of ridiculous patents. Every system has flaws. In the criminal justice system we wrongfully convict and exculpate on a regular basis. Do we throw out the system because of these flaws? No.

"The proponents have been pressing for very aggressive provisions. When you do that in a broad way, it really compromises the ability of patent holders to legitimately enforce patents."

IF it is a software patent, THEN it can not be "legitimately" enforced. I say that as a software patent holder. Software patents shouldn't exist unless the patent office can find someway of not granting obvious patents. They "obviously" will never do that, so that's why we can't have nice things, like software patents.

edit: Better to slow down innovation a bit by not allowing patents on software, than attach a huge ball and chain to the whole industry's leg, which is what is happening now. The net effect would be positive for innovation. Less suing, and more actual product development.

I've got to take issue with the "huge ball and chain" comment. The US has been more permissive than the EU in granting software patents. Which region has the better software based economy? I can't say that software patents help, but they certainly aren't a "huge ball and chain."

And, please, anyone attempting to rebut this, cite some data. Don't come at me with this "patent system is broken" stuff citing anecdotal evidence of ridiculous patents. Every system has flaws. In the criminal justice system we wrongfully convict and exculpate on a regular basis. Do we throw out the system because of these flaws? No.

people just mad that almost every tech today was thought of or made up in the 80's and 90's and they can't reuse it for free

"The proponents have been pressing for very aggressive provisions. When you do that in a broad way, it really compromises the ability of patent holders to legitimately enforce patents."

IF it is a software patent, THEN it can not be "legitimately" enforced. I say that as a software patent holder. Software patents shouldn't exist unless the patent office can find someway of not granting obvious patents. They "obviously" will never do that, so that's why we can't have nice things, like software patents.

edit: Better to slow down innovation a bit by not allowing patents on software, than attach a huge ball and chain to the whole industry's leg, which is what is happening now. The net effect would be positive for innovation. Less suing, and more actual product development.

I would partially agree with you. The single problem with US software patents is that they are classified as Utility Patents by the USPTO but they do not meet the basic standards for being a Utility Patent.

Until software patents are reclassified as either a sub-group of Design Patents or as their own entity entirely I do not see a way that there can be a valid reform movement to the “patent troll” situation.

This is easy to say but the larger problem is that if there were a reclassification of software patents tomorrow it would severely undermine the US economy overnight. If the investment of billions (if not trillions) of dollars in software patents were to be suddenly removed from the most lucrative tech sectors in the economy then the perceived value and stability of the US economy would be shaken.

Unfortunately, at least in my opinion, the longer that software patents remain classified as Utility Patents the more instability will grow into the US economy.

Software should not be patented at all. The code should be covered under Copyright. If someone else comes up with another way to do the same thing, more power to 'em.

Let's not forget that the supposed reason why we as a society grant someone a monopoly on an invention is TO STIMULATE INVENTIONS. Monopolies are usually detrimental to the general population, but the stimulation of new technologies is thought to be worth it.

So when looking at whether something should be patentable, surely the pertinent question is whether the said development would have occurred without the hope of a patent.

I bet you 90% of the patented mechanisms actually in use would have been developed anyway, because the first-comer advantage is enough of a motivator. As for whether a business can make money... I honestly don't get why anyone cares about this.

Let's not forget that the supposed reason why we as a society grant someone a monopoly on an invention is TO STIMULATE INVENTIONS. Monopolies are usually detrimental to the general population, but the stimulation of new technologies is thought to be worth it.

So when looking at whether something should be patentable, surely the pertinent question is whether the said development would have occurred without the hope of a patent.

I bet you 90% of the patented mechanisms actually in use would have been developed anyway, because the first-comer advantage is enough of a motivator. As for whether a business can make money... I honestly don't get why anyone cares about this.

patents came out in the 1600's in England when people would invent stuff and others would rip it off. just like copyrights. before patents the only people doing the inventing were rich people with lots of times on their hands. patents allow anyone to start a company to sell an invention

"The proponents have been pressing for very aggressive provisions. When you do that in a broad way, it really compromises the ability of patent holders to legitimately enforce patents."

IF it is a software patent, THEN it can not be "legitimately" enforced. I say that as a software patent holder. Software patents shouldn't exist unless the patent office can find someway of not granting obvious patents. They "obviously" will never do that, so that's why we can't have nice things, like software patents.

edit: Better to slow down innovation a bit by not allowing patents on software, than attach a huge ball and chain to the whole industry's leg, which is what is happening now. The net effect would be positive for innovation. Less suing, and more actual product development.

I would partially agree with you. The single problem with US software patents is that they are classified as Utility Patents by the USPTO but they do not meet the basic standards for being a Utility Patent.

Until software patents are reclassified as either a sub-group of Design Patents or as their own entity entirely I do not see a way that there can be a valid reform movement to the “patent troll” situation.

This is easy to say but the larger problem is that if there were a reclassification of software patents tomorrow it would severely undermine the US economy overnight. If the investment of billions (if not trillions) of dollars in software patents were to be suddenly removed from the most lucrative tech sectors in the economy then the perceived value and stability of the US economy would be shaken.

Unfortunately, at least in my opinion, the longer that software patents remain classified as Utility Patents the more instability will grow into the US economy.

I don't agree that getting rid of software patents overnight would shake the economy. Shake the economy of trolls, yes, Big Time. But getting rid of illegitimate patents isn't a problem, since those "billions" shouldn't ever have been there in the first place, and the legitimate ones... they are almost always developed as a by-product of software development, which has other purposes, and other mechanisms of return-on-investment that are almost always not related to patent licensing.

The most common and useful non-troll role that software patents play is defensive, to protect a company if it is sued by another large entity, so that a situation of "mutually assured destruction" is in play: generally they are not used to generate licensing fees, but to allow bogus lawsuits from others to end in mutual cross-licensing if possible, in which no money changes hands (except from technologists to lawyers).

So if all software patents were eliminated in one stroke, those defensive patents would all disappear, and the need for them would disappear at the same time, since their attacker's patents would disappear well. So in fact it would be far better to clear them all out at the same time, so as not to leave companies undefended.

"The proponents have been pressing for very aggressive provisions. When you do that in a broad way, it really compromises the ability of patent holders to legitimately enforce patents."

IF it is a software patent, THEN it can not be "legitimately" enforced. I say that as a software patent holder. Software patents shouldn't exist unless the patent office can find someway of not granting obvious patents. They "obviously" will never do that, so that's why we can't have nice things, like software patents.

edit: Better to slow down innovation a bit by not allowing patents on software, than attach a huge ball and chain to the whole industry's leg, which is what is happening now. The net effect would be positive for innovation. Less suing, and more actual product development.

I would partially agree with you. The single problem with US software patents is that they are classified as Utility Patents by the USPTO but they do not meet the basic standards for being a Utility Patent.

Until software patents are reclassified as either a sub-group of Design Patents or as their own entity entirely I do not see a way that there can be a valid reform movement to the “patent troll” situation.

This is easy to say but the larger problem is that if there were a reclassification of software patents tomorrow it would severely undermine the US economy overnight. If the investment of billions (if not trillions) of dollars in software patents were to be suddenly removed from the most lucrative tech sectors in the economy then the perceived value and stability of the US economy would be shaken.

Unfortunately, at least in my opinion, the longer that software patents remain classified as Utility Patents the more instability will grow into the US economy.

Software should not be patented at all. The code should be covered under Copyright. If someone else comes up with another way to do the same thing, more power to 'em.

You realize that you're validating the purpose behind software patents with that last sentence, right? The point of any patent is that when someone comes up with a product, you either fork over money for licensing fees or come up with a valid design-around.

Well I got a quick solution for our crooked politicians. If they are willing to ignore their obligations to the untold amounts of taxpaying citizens to chase after the donations/bribe money from patent trolls and copyright maximalist interests then lets eliminate their salaries/benefits that are paid with our taxes since that money apparently is not interesting enough to them to work for us. perhaps switching to an "incentive for performance" system since it seems to motivate them better to do their work.

For those who are able to look beyond the borders of the USA - the rest of the English-speaking legal world deals with the entire issue of frivolous or unjustified or blackmailing lawsuits with one simple, uncontroversial rule that has always existed. If you sue, and lose, you pay the defendant's legal costs. It works, without all the other micro-management that has been proposed to specifically regulate NPEs. And we outside the USA get to not hear as much of the whining from the IT sector about how patents somehow shouldn't apply to all technologies equally...